[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

He’s baaaack!

Honestly, I don’t think you and I have much of a disagreement here dude.

When looking at the socio-political contexts of the three big abrahmic faiths, one is really struck at the differences of situations, and therefore the difference in their respective missions (as experienced–not necessarily as proscribed).

I mean Christianity started as a resistance movement against a very strong empire.

Islam started as a unifying faith during the dark ages in the absence of any unified political structure.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Or, are you just another bigoted hypocrite, too?[/quote]

He’s baaaack!

Honestly, I don’t think you and I have much of a disagreement here dude.

When looking at the socio-political contexts of the three big abrahmic faiths, one is really struck at the differences of situations, and therefore the difference in their respective missions (as experienced–not necessarily as proscribed).

I mean Christianity started as a resistance movement against a very strong empire.

Islam started as a unifying faith during the dark ages in the absence of any unified political structure.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:191-193) And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.
[/quote]
As you may have noticed this is about self defense.
Hence the phrases “…where they drove you out..” and “…persecution is no more…”
[quote=surveyor]
Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”[/quote]

By definition this is not about Jihad (ashgar or akbar) because the word used specifies Qital. It refers to physical fighting and self defense in the face of oppressors regardless of how difficult or troubling. In other words, its about not being walked on or allowing others to be walked on.

I found the following commentary illuminating:
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_2216_commentary/

Getting back to the main theme:
There are 5 principles of Islam.
Neither struggle (Jihad) nor fighting (Qital) is a salient component of any of them.

Violence was an early feature but almost always in the context of empire-building (like in the middle ages) or resistance (like now).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=surveyor][quote=urbanrealtor]
[quote=surveyor]I think you should start reading the koran. The current problems we have with islamofacism is due to the calls to islamic supremacy that is within the koran, and hadiths. This islamic supremacy actually does fit the definition of ideology. All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.
(and PLEASE don’t try to use the argument that the bible/christianity is just as violent as the koran/islam. You would be devastatingly wrong.)
[/quote][/quote]

dan, once again you fail reading comprehension. That is both being dishonest and a failure of understanding. That someone pointing out that islamofacism is due to the problems within the core koranic texts and instructions is not the same as calling every muslim “inherently warlike and all pious followers violent”. You were the one who said that, not me. I don’t think all muslims are violent and inherently warlike. I don’t call all Germans Nazis. But yet you seem to have trouble with distinctions like that.

Reading is so fundamental.

I am somewhat careful with what I say, unlike you. If you don’t get my facts, it’s because you’ve had a history of problems with reading comprehension. Even the media now is starting to admit he was a terrorist, so my analysis was at least factually correct, despite it being a purported “broad collection of anecdotes” and “debate-club rehash”.

If I am successful in calling out others’ lack of logical thinking because of their use of logical fallacies and ineffective arguments, that is a construct meant to foster debate, not intimidate it. More than anything it is your tendency to call people names that intimidates dissent.[/quote]

Your specific comment was that “…not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so.”

If my paraphrase was not to your liking then I think your direct quote will suffice in drawing out my point.

This was a statement linking adherence to specific contemporary norms to a world religion in negative way.
Ergo, it constitutes normative prejudice about a group of people based upon religious affiliation.
That is, by definition, a bigoted statement.

Without the cheesy oh-Dan-you-have-no-reading-comprehension speech can you clarify what is inaccurate ?

I don’t think you can call me a name-caller (thus name-calling me) if I am drawing a logical conclusion based upon what you have said and the literal definition of bigotry (honestly you have called you a bigot).

This would be culpable and weak as an ad-hominem fallacy if you said that to be pious Muslims must make war and then I were to respond by calling you ugly.

What I did respond with was that your statements constituted bigotry. Look up the definition. I am not wrong.

I do find bigotry especially entertaining in minorities.

That you are asian, I find to be just gleefully ironic.

The hypocrisy just tickles me.

For me it fits neatly and weirdly in with your statements about canonical history being wrong and here-is-a-fringe-author-who-says-so as “evidence”.

Just several centuries of liberal media I guess.

[Author]

Posts